Insurance commission clarifies issues raised in paid ad

In order to avoid any impression of prejudgment and to avoid discussing a matter pending in the Court of Appeals, we will not delve into the details and merits of the administrative cases cited in the open letter of Steel Corporation of the Philippines (SCP), which appeared on Page 11A of the Nov. 2, 2016, Inquirer issue. Allow us, however, to clarify matters.

First, what is pending before the Insurance Commission (IC) are administrative cases, over which the IC jurisdiction involves only the determination of the issue of whether or not insurance companies are guilty of unfair claim settlement and punishable with suspension or license revocation. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the regular courts in insurance claims collection cases involves the determination of (1) whether or not the claimant is legally entitled to receive the proceeds of the insurance policy, and (2) the correct amount of the insurance proceeds due.

Second, Abeto Uy claims that the IC has not acted on its request regarding the identities of the reinsurers of the insurance companies involved in the second case.

This is completely incorrect. On Aug. 15, 2016, SCP acknowledged the prompt action made by the IC. To further accommodate SCP’s request, the IC required all insurance companies concerned to comment on SCP’s request.

Third, taking SCP’s letter in its totality, it seems that SCP is insinuating that I am favoring the insurance companies due to my previous connection with the industry. This is utterly unfounded, unjustified and unreasonable.

Note that the insurance companies involved in these cases are nonlife insurance companies, which I was never associated with prior to my appointment as insurance commissioner. During my previous involvement in the industry, I was employed by one life insurance company only.

Since my appointment as insurance commissioner in January 2011, I was never accused of or held accountable for favoring any particular insurance company. In fact, when the amended Insurance Code provided a new term of office for the insurance commissioner, I tendered my resignation only to be reappointed.

Fourth, considering the pendency of the petition for mandamus, the actuations of SCP in sensationalizing this matter (through various publications and paid advertisements) cast doubt on the true intention of SCP.

Fifth, the act of SCP in bringing this matter to the Office of the President (OP) and the Department of Finance (DOF) could place both offices in a compromising situation, as the decisions of this commission on administrative cases are appealable to the DOF, which may be further elevated to the OP.

What is most alarming is that Uy himself, in the alleged administrative complaint he filed against Judge Josefino Subia, admitted he gave monetary consideration to Judge Subia in exchange for a favorable decision in the insurance claim collection case which was then pending in the latter’s sala. This matter was published in the July 25, 2016, issue of Pilipino Star Ngayon and in the Aug. 4, 2016, issue of the Inquirer.

Rest assured that despite Uy’s accusatory allegations, the IC remains true to its mandate of protecting the interest and welfare of the insuring public.

EMMANUEL F. DOOC, commissioner, Insurance Commission